Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
RicS Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day all,

As most of you know, my primary interest lays with climate research. I don't tend to agree with a great deal of research that is used to support global warming because I believe the scientific methods used or the manipulation of data or even the unchallenged assumptions on which the research is based severely diminishes the worth of the research. This is based on analysis of research that I'm currently tasked with examining and observation, rather than a strongly held belief for or against global warming. I do hope the distinction means something to others on this forum.

It certainly does not mean that I do not respect those who hold differing views. Indeed, I have learned a great deal from this site, mainly through threads that do not agree with a position I have suggested or held.

Currently Climate Threads are really not much fun. They don't stay on topic. They often contain insults. They end up with bickering rather than a discussion on the science.

I would like to suggest some common sense guidelines for Climate posts. I would really like to see input from others so we can reach a "consensus" on what guidelines would be appropriate to ensure such threads remain interesting, challenging and even fun for the participants (and even for the lurkers who just read).

How about threads stay on topic and if a post goes significantly off topic it is simply not responded to or gets a simple response post saying something like: "Not part of the thread being discussed. Please post in a more appropriate thread or create a new one".

I've suggested that posts that are insulting, not in the spirit of this forum or off topic, could even be moved to a thread called something like: "Off-Topic Relocated Climate Posts". But that may be a bit drastic.

There's probably a few other guidelines that would make sense but I'd prefer others suggested some as well.

I enjoy the posts on this forum. I've had interesting conversations with a few people from quite different backgrounds that otherwise I would never have had the privilege of interacting with. I'd like to continue the positive aspects of this forum in my principal area of interest, climate, without the current problems with threads and hope that most others feel the same way. Climate change is raised very often on this forum. It is perhaps the largest subset of threads in the "Science Discussion Forum".

Let's face it, given that a third of the US Government's research funding currently goes to climate science, new research is published every day and something interesting crops up probably a couple of times a week.

Any constructive ideas as to guidelines or even if the idea is a reasonable one.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
how about we insist that any link that does not contain actual data, or at least a link to the data, be lable as a "news only" link. we can still discuss it, but with the knowledge that that link is based on the opinion of the article's writer, and as such, is no more valid that other opinions, political motivated or otherwise.

any link that does contain data is labled "scientific", and the discussion on it would be about the data.

links that were news but had link to the data, and how it were collected, would have a seperate label and would have discussion of both the data and the opinion of the article's writer.


personally i like the data links best. unfortuantely they are the rarest.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Quote:
a third of the US Government's research funding currently goes to climate science
99.8% of Department of Education funding goes to other than the Gifted. What does that buy?


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Richard,
My first thought when I read this topic was that my concerns about theories could be applied here. One forum to address evidence, one to address predictions, one to address founding assumptions, etc. might help keep things focused; BUT?.

Every time I start thinking about how to ?guide? the conversation, I end up seeing it as limiting. Would diversity be limited? Would serendipity, creativity, comfort level, and enjoyment be limited?
Every time, after pondering these limitations for a while, I find myself imagining different way the forums could be physically restructured to accommodate the wide variety of responses on a thread. I like wikipedia?s discussion pages linked to a particular topic. Something like that could accompany each post, allowing comments on the post, without derailing the thread from the original topic; because so often a post simply critiques the previous post?s style or technique without commenting on the thread topic. The linear structure of the current forums fosters this; whereas if ?critiques? could be posted on a ?sidebar,? the topic thread might survive more easily.

A ?guideline? about reading the thread completely (at least once!) should be self-evident; but even that could be somewhat ?limiting.?

As it stands now, things may be better though, because it stikes me as a sort of organic system with competing threads, some more fit than others, that evolve as postings continue. It is harsh and unfair at times, but that?s evolution!

It might be neat if thread originators could move the whole thread between forums.

I just recently became aware of the ?notifications? option, and haven?t looked yet; but I can imagine some options in that area that might provide more cross-linking between threads.

Basically, every time I start thinking about this, I start imagining different designs, structures, and capabilities of the fora.

Good topic Richard, if not a good reminder too.

~~Samwik


P.S. 'nother thought. It'd be good to have a "quote" showing which post was "most recent" when the current post was started. Sometimes, while composing a post, others are posted and it becomes hard to attribute the references in the composition to the correct previous postings.
~or words to that effect....

~S


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Uncle Al asks:
"99.8% of Department of Education funding goes to other than the Gifted. What does that buy?"

I think, as envisioned by the country's founders, a democracy.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
DA, ---zing! smile

Excellent point (if not off topic).

Wouldn't this be a perfect example of the utility of a sidebar for critiques (re: my preceeding post).

~samwik

P.S. Speaking of education, let me go on and on ...
...how easy it is to get off topic.


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
RicS Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day all,

Hmm, talk about going off topic! Going off topic for a while isn't necessarily an issue, unless it means that someone interested in the thread's actual topic finds the whole thing too confusing.

It seems to me that most threads in the Science discussion forum meander a little but are generally polite and discuss the topic at hand. Climate science seems to be a little different in that all topics seem to degenerate into one overall topic, whether any critiscm of any aspect of global warming should be tolerated at all. There is a book being recommended on this site right now: "Kicking the Sacred Cow: Heresy and Impermissible Thoughts in Science" by Hogan. According to this text, it seems that global warming is one of those sacred cows and any discussion concerning it is not permissible within scientific communities. This forum tends to support Mr Hogan's views (although I have taken this from the review - I haven't been able to get a copy of the book yet).

I don't want to suggest limiting the freedoms of any participant in the forum discussions, just perhaps have some "guidelines" (generally accepted modes of usage as opposed to hard and fast rules) that those that do participate in this "sacred cow" subject agree aid the discussion without removing the rights of those that disagree with whatever is written.

Right now the forum guidelines really are a bit stark. And for good reason. They are to protect the forum owners and the moderators and in place to remove offensive, defamatory or any material that might cause problems with the poster or the forum. Indemnity conditions are not all that good at protecting moderators or site owners, especially not in the US. Canada has actually shown itself to me even more restrictive with basically any forum being deemed to be a publisher and responsible for any and all comments posted on it, even if not seen by the owners or operators or even condemned by them (The current case concerning this is to do with P2P networks and I'm not even going to mention the participants).

I was a moderator for many years on a site and was give absolute control over the site by the owners. So I could do whatever I wanted and then did almost nothing because its easy to obtain such power but much harder to use it without causing problems. I changed the guidelines to the site and it did have an effect over time but these guidelines were mostly aimed at protecting the feelings of those on the site (the site including forums that supported those with health problems).

In this case I would simply like to see threads, when they related to Climate, relate to climate! It would be really nice if they mostly related to the title of the thread as well but it seems to me that this requires censorship and I don't like censorship much. Diversity of opinion is a given. Personally I would also like to see respect towards other participants in that only the topic is discussed without mention of what someone thinks of the individual. If it was the Origins forum where religion is being discussed then naturally it gets much more personal but it isn't. It is supposed to be about science and this forum is very good at providing differing views on a great many science subjects.

Anyway, it is something to consider.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Richard, I'm thinking you hadn't read my post above [10/28, 2:08PM], when you responded to my:

"Maybe these mammoths ...such a smart mammoth!


~samwik

P.S. Isn't this a good example of a thread that maybe should be moved over to "not-quite-sci;" or maybe duplicated over there. After duplication, that new thread could go on speculating, and the this original could get back to discussing whatever this thread started with -Ice? [update: no, it was Ocean Arrays...]

AND it'd be nice to put this "P.S." in a side-bar & also add it to the other thread re: (now I can't go look at the title without losing all my typing here, so I'll call it) Climate Change Forum Modifications."
[update: no, it was Suggestions for Climate Threads]
* * * --end quote from the other thread

So, good examples of structural changes to the fora themselves, rather than rules or guidelines. Composing offline helps counter some of these problems (one can be more certain of the current status of the fora when posting), and one can navigate around to find quotes or references without losing the current composition.

Might be nice to have a button so a response could be posted on multiple threads (as relevance might suggest), rather than relying on cut'n'paste.

~Sam

P.S. ...and I hadn't read your immediately preceeding post when this one was written. ~S


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
I think it was dehammer who wrote on the not quite science thread:

"Having two or more truly competing theories can make for interesting debates."

The comments on SAGG show this is certainly so. I find all comments interesting, although I prefer the brief ones! In fact I think the instructions stress "brief".

Samwik:

"now I can't go look at the title without losing all my typing here."

You can scroll to the top of the page you're working on without losing your typing. The title of the thread appears in black in the strip at top right.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Yep, but I can't look at other pages, without losing....
It'd be nice to have the title at the bottom too (where we're reading and typing) and that would maybe remind people of the real topic. There were a couple of times that I thought I knew where I was, but later found out...

AND -I'm copying this below from the "Ocean Arrays" page too.

"You are absolutely right but mere members cannot move posts." -RicS
That's what I meant by changing the structure of the fora.

I'd also like to see a link to the "All Fora Overview" in that "Hop To" button on the bottom of each screen.

What about reposting the last entry on a page onto the top of the next page?

Thanks,
~samwik
---end quote from Ocean Arrays....

When I say "structure" of the forum, I'm referring to the physical layout and options avaiable.

~Sam

P.S. ...watch out for the fora & fauna smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
RicS, while some methods of calculating the average would make the results have a higher magnitude than others, is there any way of knowing how the average is calculated at each station? That way we would be able to group the stations by calculation method.

John M Reynolds

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
RicS Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day John,

A really good question but it doesn't match the thread. But since the Climate threads are not staying on topic for more than a post or so anyway, why should this make any difference.

I was quite happily having a email conversation with an expert at a Climate centre. He was happily providing some detail of some of the extraordinary problems with indidivual weather bureaus, within states, within country and across states and countries. The conversation came to an abrupt stop when I asked a question relating to a study that he apparently didn't like to be challenged in any way.

But here is the problem. I can tell you for instance that in Western Australia they record a record high or low as the day that it is read. In New South Wales, where I live, the record the record high or low as the day it most likely occurred on (the previous day). That makes little difference to averages but a very big difference to some other studies related global warming.

I can tell you how the average is currently calculated by the Australian Met Bureau but not how they did it 15 years ago. But a great deal of bureaus provide their data to say the UK Met Bureau on a proprietary basis and no one else is able to access the raw data. Worse, the averaging system also has the same anonimity and might have changed more than once even within a year, let alone over several years.

So if all you have is monthly averages, there is next to no chance at all of determining how the average was calculated for an individual station or state, region or country. This is one of the reasons why raw data is something I'm currently so focused on. At least with raw data, all I have to do is look at the monthly average and from the raw data can determine how the average was created and what the difference is due to that particular method of calculation. Indeed, I would like to produce a data set that includes an average always calculated the same way; plus the method adopted in the main data sets currently used, and the difference this produces, plus modifications to the data, undertaken by the group that produced the data set, and how this differs from the raw data, etc.

It should show pretty clearly just what different methods achieve but actually getting the raw data is the most difficult part. Finding out what happened to a weather station can only be achieved if a sample group is made. It is just way too difficult to make the various enquiries needed to find that level of detail for more than a very few stations.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5